[PrimeMcFly]

We need wealth limits for companies (which should be more like co-ops), proportional to the size of the company, with everything pasta threshold going back into UBI or something. Same for individual wealth accumulation.

People could do more projects/start more companies to earn more, but no one should be accumulating millions by doing almost nothing as is the case now.

[prottog]

> no one should be accumulating millions by doing almost nothing as is the case now

Outside of people who inherit this kind of wealth, who exactly is accumulating millions just sitting on their asses?

[r00fus]

I can't find the source, but I heard most of the newest crop of billionaires made all their money of financialized wealth (ie, not producing anything of value, just arbitraging something - probably mostly real-estate).

They're not exactly doing nothing but they're not producing anything of real value. This is a growing problem in the US.

[snapcaster]

I agree with your larger points, but also arbitraging away price differences is valuable for a society. It feels like one of the big advantages capitalism has versus planned economies

[PrimeMcFly]

People who earn via investing for starters.

And then you have people earning millions, that at least when compared to the numerous workers being underpaid and actually doing the hard work that generates profit, basically do so little work they may as well be sitting on their asses.

[umrcumrcu]

You would effectively ban investment then? No one could earn any money from index funds?

[r00fus]

Your argument is a strawman - but yes, ideally this would come via additional taxation or regulation of investment (which we do now, but not well enough).

[nickpp]

That would restrict access to early investment deals and opportunities for regular folks even more (today you have to be a "certified" investor) in turn increasing wealth inequality and social mobility.

[mxkopy]

black/white fallacy

[umrcumrcu]

Someone has a million in index funds and earns more than a Walmart worker by "sitting on their ass". Are you proposing a ban to that?

[peterashford]

You really need to learn how to respond to arguments without constructing strawmen. You can't get to a resolution of different viewpoints by misrepresenting the opposing argument

[mxkopy]

limit != ban

Capital gains taxes don't prevent an investor from making money.

[just-ok]

a $10M portfolio with 10% annual gains (tweak the numbers as you’d like, it’s still fairly reasonable for the “wealthy”, I think)

[umrcumrcu]

What wealth limit are you proposing and why wouldn't companies leave for another country?

[PrimeMcFly]

> why wouldn't companies leave for another country?

Solved by limiting the profit that can be transferred out to foreign companies/parent companies.

If a market is too big, as long as money can still be made even with a cap, a company won't leave - or if they do a competitor will spring up to take its place.

[refurb]

So capital controls? Like China? That has a ton of associated problems.

[PrimeMcFly]

I mean, I'm not sure China is the role model for how to do anything like that really. Doesn't mean the idea is without merit though.

[refurb]

It kind of does because you can see the problems with capital controls in China.

Foreign investment drops off because, hey, who is going to invest if they can take their money back out?

It's also going to limit foreign investment outside the country.

It also screws with exchange rates and interest rates because of the Interest Rate parity law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity

[snapcaster]

You seem to be implicitly assuming that "foreign investment" == good. This is sometimes (or even often true) but it's not like it's without tradeoffs

[mxkopy]

> why wouldn't companies leave for another country

Haven't they already?

Besides, that might be a good thing, if corporate overreach continues to grow unchecked.

[randomcarbloke]

Coops are free to exist and do, unfortunately they cannot scale - you need to solve this before mandating all companies act as cooperatives.

[PrimeMcFly]

Of course coops can scale.

https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/j...

[jhbadger]

That certainly shows that coops can be bigger than the cliched coop grocery store and the like, but even the largest coops on that list aren't particularly large as far as corporations go even if some have high revenue -- and look what industries they are in -- banking, lumber, insurance -- not exactly progressive role models.

[PrimeMcFly]

> but even the largest coops on that list aren't particularly large as far as corporations go even if some have high revenue

And you think that's a bad thing?

[jhbadger]

The argument was whether they could scale, and they don't seem to be able to beyond a certain point (and even then only in fields of dubious value like banking). Whether or not scaling is a good thing or not is an entirely different thing.

[PrimeMcFly]

I don't think it's an issue that they can scale, I see no reason they could not, I think it's because they don't have the appetite to do so.

There is nothing intrinsically limiting about the format of a coop that would prevent it from being as big as needed, IMO.

[randomcarbloke]

it's well established that expansion is the reason coops don't reach the levels of actually competitive entities, the largest of those in that list (retail notwithstanding) exist almost solely due to subsidisation.

Inability to expand is practically built-in to the structure of worker and consumer cooperatives.

That they're free to exist but don't dominate the marketplace (the total revenue of those 300 companies is still less than the revenue of the top 10 non-coops) should be evidence enough but you're welcome to exploree the literature yourself.

[PrimeMcFly]

> That they're free to exist but don't dominate the marketplace

Why do you think not dominating the marketplace is a bad thing?

[randomcarbloke]

I'm saying consumer preference favours more competitive companies...ignore your distaste at the connotations of the word "dominate" and focus on the discussion - coops would be more commonplace, larger, and more successful...which is what you want no? Personally I'm indifferent to coops and their successes, they're a valid business model, they shouldn't be mandated, their structure limits them.

[PrimeMcFly]

I agree about their being more competitive companies, but I disagree that co-ops prevent that.

What is it you think about their structure that limits them?

And regardless of your answer, whatever issues may or may not exist and be limiting, rules and limitations can be adjusted as needed. The fundamental principle is that workers would have more of a say to some extent, but more importantly receive more of the profit that their work produces.